[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 10 KB, 202x249, jerry.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4299208 No.4299208[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Hey /lit/

who is your least favourite philosopher and why?

>> No.4299210

tao lin because he tries to be nice to everyone

>> No.4299216

Derrida

>> No.4299225

john stuart mill

megapleb. remember that this dude came out AFTER schopenhauer

>> No.4299230

>>4299225
I quite like Mill, although I suppose his ethics are a bit outdated.

>> No.4299232

Hobbes

>> No.4299235
File: 100 KB, 600x446, peter_singer8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4299235

Peter Singer, because he's a disgusting man.

Also, because he whines about 'speciesism' and animal rights, but considers fucking animals legit for reasons that could also be used to justify sex with little children.

Pic related, molestation in action.

>> No.4299237

>>4299210
Oh shit misread the question.

>> No.4299261

>>4299235
Pretty sure Singer doesn't say we can fuck little girls...

>> No.4299266
File: 75 KB, 402x402, John-Stuart-Mill-9408210-1-402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4299266

>>4299225
>this is what a utilitarian looks like

>> No.4299272

>>4299261
I didn't say that he did.

>> No.4299286

Nietzsche, seriously is he even a real fucking philosopher?

>> No.4299288

Kant
"If all of society adhered to these guidelines everything would be great!"
Worst kind of philosophy, if you could get everyone to agree on everything the specifics of your system are irrelevant to begin with.

>> No.4299303

>>4299286
lolno

he's chicken soup for the existentially and historically anguished soul.

come at me bros

>> No.4299337

>>4299288
I thought of Kant as a response to OP's question, but I can't really hate him for his relevance to later philosophy. He's just too damn important.

>> No.4299341

Wittgenstein, cause he kill philosophy.

>> No.4299349

Any postmodernist.

>> No.4299361

>>4299286
Don't be ignorant.

Nietzsche is one of the most influential and empowering writers in Western history.

>> No.4299364

>>4299349
Why?

>> No.4299367

>>4299216
>>4299232
Why?

>> No.4299370

>>4299361
Influential, maybe, but OP asked who my personal least favorite was, and mine is nietzsche, because i think his ideas are bullshit and he writes like a faggot.

>> No.4299372

Wittgenstein

>> No.4299385

Mill, Bentham, Singer.

Is there any real way to properly defend utilitarianism?

>> No.4299387

>>4299361
dat freudian slip

>most influential and empowering writers
>writers
>writers

took the words out of my mouth. nietzsche is a good writer, but not as good a philosopher. for every idea nietzsche had, Kant had 10. and whatever kant said had already been said by greeks thousands of years previous.

>> No.4299393

>>4299370
You are clearly the person we should be listening to, not Nietzsche.

Right.

>> No.4299409

>>4299387
Since when to excellence and originality necessarily coincide?

>> No.4299420

>>4299409
you're not comprehending my point. one can be an excellent and original writer, but still fail as a philosopher.

>> No.4299440

>>4299420
So he failed because Kant had a larger quantity of ideas?

>> No.4299450

Hobbes.

>> No.4299465

hm
probably any philosopher that appeals to god instead of admitting human's incapabilities of understanding

kierkegaard, leibniz, kant etc

>> No.4299466

Nietzsche.
I enjoy reading him and I think he writes good literature, but he doesn't seem to ever really make a good argument, just claims.

>> No.4299478

berkeley

>> No.4299484

plotinus is ass
descartes is autistic
hume sucks dick
russell is retarded
camus is pleb
aristotle is wrong
arendt is female

>> No.4299485

>>4299478
why

>> No.4299487

>>4299484
>hume sucks dick
>russell is retarded
>camus is pleb

yeah nah

>> No.4299490

>>4299487
nah yeah

>> No.4299497

>>4299490
sucks less dick, is less retarded, and less pleb than you.
u ok?

>> No.4299502

>>4299485
because the strong thesis in subjective idealism is stupid.

>> No.4299506

>>4299497
sorry im the best

>> No.4299511

I dont like Hume

>> No.4299516

>>4299440
i did not say that nietzsche failed. i was only clarifying my point in relation to your question. however, i would still argue that kant was a much more disciplined and productive philosopher than nietzsche.

quantity is one aspect, yes, but rigor is another. discipline or rigor in philosophy includes, but is not limited to, conjuring counter-arguments to your ideas and addressing them, or re-structuring your own arguments/theses. to give another example: hegel. take any page out of the phenomenology of spirit/mind and compare it with nietzsche. hegel is not only more engaged with the 'philosophical tradition,' but his ideas are more disciplined. its extremely dense.

>> No.4299531

>>4299502
>is stupid
good argument

>> No.4299535

>>4299516
the whole point of nietzsche was stepping out of the hegelian and kantian hyper-attention to and glorification of reason. he set the groundwork for pretty much all continental philosophy to come.

some of the 20th century greats, like Foucault, Heidegger, Derrida, Deleuze, etc. all draw heavily from Nietzsche.

>> No.4299538

>>4299531
>>>/hm/ is the homework board

>> No.4299551

>>4299538
>>>/b/

>> No.4299553

>>4299538
yes shunning anti intellectualism is valid grounds for you to infer that i need anon to posit a counter argument to something which he called stupid for my homework
epic!

>> No.4299561

>>4299535
>Kant
>glorification of reason

i'm going to stop wasting my time arguing with you now. you have some serious reading to do.

>> No.4299980

>>4299225
the harm principle is aite, can't really think of any situation when it wouldn't apply although it might not be comprehensive

>> No.4299997

FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE, AND AYN RAND.

THE TWO MOST "LIFE AFFIRMING" PHILOSOPHERS.

THEY COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER.

>> No.4300002

>>4299237

I MISREAD ALSO.

I INFER THAT THE IMAGE ATTACHED IN THE "ORIGINAL POST" WAS A FACTOR; I AVOIDED LOOKING DIRECTLY AT IT, AND THAT TAMPERED WITH MY READING OF THE POST.

>> No.4300006

>>4299997
no, they absolutely don't, retard. Rand's "philosophy" is politically-oriented, rejects the Dionysian in favor of the Apollonian, embraces logic and reason, and at heart is merely a shallow anti-Marxism... Nietzsche would utterly despise Rand and everything she stands for

>> No.4300018

i've never read nietzsche but a lot of what i hear about the dude makes him sound like some neckbeard fantasizing about being an alpha.

>> No.4300044
File: 24 KB, 291x308, AYN RAND.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4300044

>>4300006

THOSE ARE SUPERFICIAL DIFFERENCES; THEIR RESPECTIVE PRINCIPLES DERIVE FROM THE SAME SOURCE; HUMAN NOBILITY.

DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND THE MEANING OF THE WORD "COMPLEMENT"?

>> No.4300054

Hey what's the consensus on Schopenhauer? I've been reading about him and he sounds quite cool. Anybody give me a brief summary of why he's good or no good?

>> No.4300063
File: 13 KB, 224x216, 1380321860907.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4300063

>>4300044
so all of the philosophers who base their beliefs on humanity's underlying worth are complementary to each other. nice. that is almost every single philosopher.

>> No.4300064
File: 60 KB, 417x500, arthur-schopenhauer-06.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4300064

>>4300054
>Anybody give me a brief summary of why he's good or no good?
He's got cool hair.

>> No.4300070
File: 33 KB, 296x289, AREIZOO.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4300070

>>4300063

DO YOU ALWAYS USE INDUCTIVE REASONING TO ARRIVE AT FALLACIES, WHEN ARGUING?

>> No.4300080

>>4300070
you just said the only non-superficial difference between the two philosophers was their mutual acknowledgement of human nobility. they share that acknowledgement with a lot of other philosophers. there's no reason then to assume that Rand and Nietzsche are the most complementary to each other over Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, Mill, etc. don't see any logical fallacy there.

>> No.4300082

>>4299288
This. He is awful but really just take your pick of any Right wing Conservative philosopher and I hate them.

>> No.4300084

>>4300082
bretty open-minded there pal. stay ignorant.

>> No.4300085

>>4299484
> TFW you have serious problems taking Arendt seriously because she is grill + a nopork.

>> No.4300088

>>4299535
Well put! (I hate Hegel and Kant).

>> No.4300089

>>4300018
I suppose so, but he makes it sound like it would be really cool if we could all balance our rational and emotional tendencies of thought and action and be super-alpha irl to create an awesome nation together, but I do believe his thought was a direct precursor to Nazism, and not just because later people misread his ideas, they were enshrined in some of his works.

>> No.4300090

>>4300084
Why should I like someone who's life's goal is to deny the chaos of nature and try to control humanity with objective morality?

>> No.4300096

>>4300090
>to deny the chaos of nature and try to control humanity with objective morality
welcome to the liberal platform

>> No.4300099

locke

>> No.4300104
File: 32 KB, 317x490, wittgenstein0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4300104

Fucking Rousseau.

>> No.4300107

>>4300080

THE FACT THAT THEY SHARE THE SAME REGARD TOWARD HUMAN NOBILITY, DOES NOT MAKE THEM COMPLEMENTARY TO EACH OTHER, BUT THE FACT THAT THEIR "PHILOSOPHIES" REPRESENT TWO OPPOSITE FACETS OF THE SAME PRIME PRINCIPLE; OPPOSED BUT COMPLEMENTARY, LIKE TWO SIDES OF A COIN; OTHER PHILOSOPHERS ARE SITUATED ON THE EDGE.

>> No.4300108
File: 76 KB, 430x599, 430px-Jean-Jacques_Rousseau_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4300108

Goddamn Wittgenstein.

>> No.4300228

Socrates
he was an schizophrenic punk

>> No.4300232

Hegel because without Hegel there would be no Marx. Fucking shits, both of them.

>> No.4300240

>>4299208
Locke... just aweful.

>> No.4300269

>>4300232
Explain the first part please to me.

>> No.4300298

>>4300232
http://www.nature.com/news/who-is-the-best-scientist-of-them-all-1.14108

How does it feel to hate the most cited scholar ever?

>> No.4300310

>>4300298
>Marx
>Scientist
He he
the only reason it is there is because 80% of Marxist academic circlejerkers mention him in every single of his papers

>According to Marx(Marx, 1871) the capital(Marx, 1889) mobility(Marx, 1880) moves transversally(Marx, 1869)....

>> No.4300355

>>4300310
Funny thing about Marx is he's so influential and so good that a lot of the time people cite somebody else whose work he forms the basis of (say, Foucault) to avoid citing him.

>> No.4300471
File: 22 KB, 409x136, 1385082183481.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4300471

>>4299261

>this autistic

No, his logic can be used to construct an argument for paedophilia, which is why it is bad logic.

>> No.4300474

>>4299361

>Nietzsche
>empowering

>muh, muh, muh power

>> No.4300477

>>4299516
So you're judging him by criteria he's not trying to adhere to. Kind of like dismissing a Ferrari for it's trunk space.

>> No.4302171

>mfw no spinoza

>> No.4302186

>>4302171
What do you have against Spinoza?

>> No.4302230

>>4299561

this

>> No.4302285

>>4300477
>he's not trying to adhere to

I'm sorry, did you lose your way in this thread, or the comment chain? The thread topic is about one's least favorite PHILOSOPHER, not writer. Click up and follow the comments to the original. Someone rhetorically asked if Nietzsche was even a philosopher, and I seconded this motion, giving examples of far more disciplined, rigorous, and prolific philosophers.

Whatever Nietzsche tried to do is immaterial to the OP, and my point. What we have are his books, and the density an rigor of ideas doesn't hold up to others. Just because he's a good writer and you find him personally inspiring and emotionally affirming or uplifting doesn't make him a good philosopher. Look, I would rather read Zarathustra over Hegel any day, but I don't confuse emotionally comforting or uplifting prose for "good philosophy."

>> No.4302291

>>4299225
Hard to believe

>> No.4302298

>>4300054
Schopenhauer is an example of a man who has been conquered by Thanatos.

>> No.4302311

>no one mentioned Foucault

He's deplorable both as a thinker and as a human being.

>> No.4302358

>>4299235

Him and Ziekek are both odious human beings

thank god posterity will summarily burn their works without a second thought

>> No.4302369

>>4302358
>zizek
>odious

Why are you a shit?

>> No.4302373

>>4300054

There are more good ideas in Schopenhauer than in the works of any other philosopher, save Plato.

>> No.4302380
File: 9 KB, 170x227, 170px-Slavoj_Zizek_Fot_M_Kubik_May15_2009_01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4302380

>>4302369

lol take one look at this clown and try to tell me he represents the ascending line of human life

just try

>> No.4302394

>>4302380
I hope you aren't serious.

>> No.4302395

>all these people who still don't get wittgenstein

im 2 dumb 2 unnerstand pls kill

>> No.4302434

>>4302394

Monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo.

he's also a filthy materialist who peddles hegelian nonsense without shame in the 21st century.

>> No.4302445

>>4302434
Socrates was ugly, you ignorant fuck.

>> No.4302449

>>4302445

And he was also a buffoon dominated by vice and lust. QED

>> No.4302453

>>4302449
...

...

I literally don't know how to deal with this level of stupid.

>> No.4302464

>>4302449
Could prove you wrong with quotations from the Phaedrus, but consider it pointless. If you've got this far in life with such a serious problem with information uptake to consider Socrates a lustful buffoon, you're probably clinically retarded. I'd be better off making my arguments to my dog - at least, he's good company and doesn't stink of his own faeces.

>> No.4302471

>>4302464
somebody who doesn't like Zizek probably has a doctorate in 'not reading stuff you talk about'. Same applies for their analysis on Socrates, Marx, etc.

>> No.4302476

>>4302380
m8, can you help me relocate the ascending/descending line part in nitch's work specifically?

i'm often looking for that quote/passage but can't find it

>> No.4302479

>>4302445
Yes, that's the point. Do you even read idoly twilighties friendote?

>> No.4302484

>>4302453

Ugliness is the mostly outwardly apparent evidence of bad and low breeding. Mental celerity, rigor, and separation are noble qualities: they are a few of the many gifts bestowed on an individual by fair birth. We instinctively distrust whatever is ugly, unless we are ugly ourselves. The foundation for this revulsion is very well grounded. Socrates was ugly. Hegel was ugly. Marx was ugly. Zizek is ugly. That must be taken into account when evaluating their philosophies.

>> No.4302491

>>4302395
because no one hates him? did you read thread tittle

>> No.4302497

>>4302484
... Nice Nietzsche quote, but you're bowdlerizing his point. He called himself the 'music playing socrates' in the BoT for a reason.

>> No.4302505

>>4302497
BoT is filthy Schopenhauerian Wagnerian babby Nietzsche who has very little to do with Twilight of the Idols Nietzsche.

>> No.4302523

>>4302476

http://www.praxeology.net/twilight3.htm

33

>> No.4302530

>>4302505
OK, I take back my point.

However, I still think you're misinterpreting Zizek's ugliness. He's not ugly to decry the physical in the favour of the metaphysical, like Socrates. Zizek is ugly as an obscene gesture. He is ugly to demonstrate the essential nature of the world is one of excess, chaotic proportion, and clumsiness. Zizek has a face that Twilight of the Idols would recommend, because it is a face that oversteps boundaries of taste and proportion in a pure exercise of violence.

>> No.4302538

>>4302505
nietzsche still admires socrates tho

read the anxiety of influence

>> No.4302555

>>4302471

I don't need to read the entire opus of a particular author to know there's more dross than gold contained therein.

>> No.4302561

>>4302523
10xbruv

>> No.4302573

>>4302530

You're implying he could help being ugly, but it's not a question of cosmetics. The very drives that make one want to combine politics and philosophy into one doctrine are among the most unclean impulses to be found anywhere in the intellectual psyche. That is what makes him odious to me. He has no metaphysics, but that objection pertains to something else. It is his outstanding vulgarity, his insistence on appropriating and mangling philosophical concepts in order to furnish a unusual commentary on political matters, that offends me.

>> No.4302582

>>4302555
... Do you talk like that in real life? You could just say you're not going to read Z, because you don't like the sound of him, rather than sounding like a victorian faggot.

>> No.4302591

>>4302582

As I am free to dress myself however I like, I believe I am likewise free to clothe my thoughts however I please.

You of course enjoy the same freedom, and may even take offense to my 'appearance' if it so riles your sensibility.

>> No.4302594

>>4302573
>He has no metaphysics,

Dude, he's a Hegelian. He's like, the only philosopher who has an open metaphysics. Hegelians say 'metaphysics isn't a choice, it's a predicament'.

He's not mangling philosophical concepts. He's usually pretty deft. He's using them.

>> No.4302604

>>4302591
... Literally suppressed a snigger, even though I'm on my own. That's how deep my automatic response to your spaghetti goes.

The best writer isn't the one that uses the biggest words. Big words, more often than not, just make you sound like an idiot.

>> No.4302613

>>4302591
Also fuck if you've just won me over to the idea of sumptuary law. With capital punishment as the consequence for breaking it.

>> No.4302616

>>4302594

>Hegelians

Now there's a loaded term. Which Hegelians are you referring to?

Because there are more than a few.

>> No.4302624

>>4302613

Art is the child of luxury. Bountiful excess is an essential precondition of everything that is beautiful.

Pardon me if I find your staccato prose rather bland.

>> No.4302631

>>4302616
That specific quote is Gillian Rose, but most Hegelians are into Hegel insofar as they believe something along those lines. Zizek certainly is - that's why he constantly goes on about things like occasionalist lift buttons.

>> No.4302645

>>4302624
I find your stuck-up-cunt prose 'rather bland'.

>art is the child of luxury

What the fuck does that even mean? Are you talking about the fact that only rich people could afford paint, in the old days? Are you saying that this is an ontological fact about art? Are you saying that, preferably, art should be made by rich people?

Writing like Louix XIII would just makes you sound like an inbred. It's not luxury, it's just stupid.